Re: Biology

[Steve Johnson <***>]

Has anything really bean accomplished in "traditional
biology" since Darwin? Certainly a lot of people did a
lot of work but it has primarily been a data
collection effort about the animals' colors, shapes,
migration patterns etc. 

This is very useful but not really different from the
way ancient greeks catalogued the movements of
planets. They had little idea of what they were
studying they just wrote down some observations. I'm
not including DNA and what ensued since this was
primarily the work of physisists and chemists. I'm
also not including medicine. 

It would be fair to say that until the advent of
Rashevsky/Rosen theoretical biology and DNA discovery 
Biology was not really a discipline in the same way
that Physics or Chemistry is. Biologists did not have
any useful models of what they were studying.



--- Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> I have two comments re your remarks.
> 
> First, I think it is unjustified to say things like:
> "no one in their right
> mind would suggest that the Cartesian/Newtonian
> paradigm has done anything
> for Biology" and "Mainstream Biologists till now
> have not produced produced
> anything except naming animals with Latin names and
> categorizing them".
> Clearly, alot has been accomplished in biology,
> using this paradigm. The
> question is whether its accomplishments to date are
> prima facie evidence
> that this paradigm is adequate for all the possible
> questions of biology,
> and if not, then what paradigm(s) are required.
> 
> Second, I really wonder whether Rosen's argments
> will find its greatest
> acceptance first via biology or via physics. There
> is something powerful
> about logico-mathematical arguments which might
> persuade more physicists to
> investigate the consequences of the Rosennean
> paradigm, rather than the
> persuasive power of relational models of organisms
> per se. Just a musing.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum
> [mailto:*** Behalf Of Steve
> > Johnson
> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:40 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Biology
> >
> >
> > Re point#4: Another example is biology, and
> whether
> > biology is simply a
> > subset of modern physics or if biology has some
> > uniqueness that would
> > require physics to be altered (enlarged) in order
> to
> > accomodate biology.
> >
> > I did not mention Biology only because no one in
> their
> > right mind would suggest that the
> Cartesian/Newtonian
> > paradigm has done anything for Biology. It is in
> > Biology where it fails most spectacularly and
> where
> > Rosen's ideas find most receptive ground.
> >
> > The question was about why Physics as a discipline
> > refuses to recognize the limitations elaborated by
> > Rosen. My point was that  the reason for it is
> that
> > unlike the case of Biology, existing Newtonian
> > paradigm actually works well in many areas of
> physics
> > according to the criteria that Physicists use to
> > measure the effectiveness of a paradigm (again
> > catch-22). On top of that Physics can boast that
> their
> > existing paradigm has produced a long list of
> > practical achievements:  electricity, transistors,
> > computers, TVs, cell phones etc. (And lots of
> nasty
> > things too).
> >
> > Mainstream Biologists till now have not produced
> > produced anything except naming animals with Latin
> > names and categorizing them. Nowdays they are busy
> > naming parts of the chicken genome. Thus the
> challenge
> > of the Rosennean paradigm is more formidable since
> the
> > edifice being challenged is erected on borrowed
> > foundations.
> >
> > When Rosen's ideas find acceptance it will
> probably
> > not be through challenging Physics edifice head on
> but
> > by producing spectacular achievements in the realm
> of
> > Biology.
> >
> >
> > - Steve
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo